Mega-Thread: Trump Focused Discussion

[Lanrefni]

When's he going to propose dismemberment for theft?

Or maybe prosecuting women for adultery when they are raped,I mean his good buddies in Saudi Arabia can't be wrong,they're rich after all. /s

[Breccia]

The numbers are in, and this Super Bowl had 113M+ watchers -- the second highest ever.

Related, Rihanna's halftime show was watched by 118M+ people. Meaning, more people watched Rihanna's halftime show than any Super Bowl, ever. The only show more watched was also 2015, not a huge surprise, most people who watch one watch the other.

"Okay, but why this thread?"

*ahem*

EPIC FAIL: Rihanna gave, without question, the single worst Halftime Show in Super Bowl history — This after insulting far more than half of our Nation, which is already in serious DECLINE, with her foul and insulting language.

Also, so much for her ‘Stylist!'

Trump made this political, and Trump made it about him. Now, some posters will join me in mocking Trump for being as close to objectively wrong as you can be in artistic expression. Some posters will instead be irritated that I shoved yet another Trump failure in their rabid faces. I can't imagine this thread has much middle ground.

Oh, and Rihanna's streams have boomed since the show. Her ratings and downloads are through the roof.

And of course, the reaction to Trump's message was pretty direct and pretty negative more or less across the board. My favorite response is

Captain Pussy Grabber was offended by the language

-- Jimmy Kimmel, so yeah, that's some irony there

Trump is losing every fight he's picking, and now the NFL and Rihanna are kicking his ass in broad daylight. Can't block that with an empty classified folder.

[Breccia]

Well, you know how special prosecutors work. After they're announced and assigned, it could take months, even years before...

Or.

Special counsel alleges crime to compel testimony from Trump lawyer

Ooooooooo. That's bad. @cubby you better take a look at this.

Justice Department prosecutors wish to speak with Trump attorney Evan Corcoran, multiple outlets reported late Tuesday, seeking approval from a judge in a sealed filing to invoke the crime-fraud exception.

The rare move to push for such cooperation from an attorney can only be ignited when legal advice was given in furtherance of a crime, a key issue for prosecutors as they investigate an obstruction of justice charge in connection with their search of Mar-a-Lago.

Bear in mind, Corcoran is already on the record and is therefore likely facing other charges, such as obstruction or lying to the feds. For one, he's testified before a grand jury already, and yes, that's under oath. For two, he's one of the Trump lawyers who claimed that they'd found all the stolen documents, and of course, that turned out to be false.

But neither of those seem to be mentioned right this second. It sounds like Corcoran gave Trump criminal advice. If Corcoran conspired with Trump to commit a crime, they're both further underwater than Trump Tower.

And while I know Trump lawyers have been hit before -- like, is it a dozen by now? -- this is different. Sanctions and disbarring are pretty hefty penalties. Going to jail is worse.

- - - Updated - - -

Haven't seen anything about Nikki Haley announcing herself running for 2024, which makes sense when the last I saw, she had like 3% support.

Two things.

One, Trump hasn't strangled his phone yet trying to tweet a response. Haley might think she can escape Trump's wrath, but I don't believe that to be the case.

Two:

"No one embodies that failure more than Joe Biden" says the woman who worked with the man who was impeached twice, lost the popular vote twice, is facing multiple lawsuits and criminal investigations, whose VP left him, whose family is leaving him (politically at least), and who just this last weekend lost a fistfight with a pregnant artist.

[Edge-]

https://www.businessinsider.com/judg...ll-case-2023-2

Y'all remember Trump is still being sued by E. Jean Carroll, right? Anyways -

A federal judge on Wednesday denied former President Donald Trump's last-minute offer to provide a DNA sample to be compared against the dress of his accuser.

Longtime Elle magazine advice columnist E. Jean Carroll has two separate lawsuits against Trump, both connected to her claim that Trump raped her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has denied Carroll's allegations.

Soon after she filed her first lawsuit against Trump in 2019, claiming defamation, Carroll's attorneys asked Trump for a DNA sample to compare against male skin fragments found on the dress Carroll says she wore during the alleged assault. But Trump declined to turn over a sample until last week.

Last week, Trump's legal team made a last-minute offer to provide a DNA sample, just two months before the first trial is scheduled to start. But only on the condition that Carroll turn over the appendix of the lab report on the dress, which would contain the DNA genome of the unidentified male DNA on the dress.

Judge Lewis A. Kaplan denied that offer on Wednesday.

Kaplan wrote in his ruling that Trump offered "no persuasive reason" about why he didn't make the DNA offer in a timely fashion, and "failed to demonstrate good cause to reopen discovery" long after the deadline to exchange evidence had passed.

Both Carroll lawsuits have April trial dates and may end up being tried at the same time.

"There is no justification for imposing Mr. Trump's new proposal on Ms. Carroll now that she has prepared for a trial on the entirely justified basis that there will be no DNA evidence," Kaplan wrote.

At least judges sound like they're finally over his legal teams shenanigans, thankfully.

[Breccia]

So I saw the headlines for this but neglected to read it through. Seems I should have.

"Last week, Trump's legal team made a last-minute offer to provide a DNA sample, just two months before the first trial is scheduled to start. But only on the condition that Carroll turn over the appendix of the lab report on the dress, which would contain the DNA genome of the unidentified male DNA on the dress."

Wow. In a few years loaded with Trump's inadequacy--

"You mean legal inadequacy?"

That too. This one stands out. "Your Honor, my client will only contribute blood as required, if you tell him which blood type the evidence is so he can make sure the sample is different." No. No, that's not how this works. Holy shit, that's some blatant attempt at cheating right there.

At this point, Trump should be terrified. Because of his words and actions, it no longer matters what the DNA sample says anymore. The evidence could have degraded or even been a different man for all the court cares right now. The legal assumption will be that, because Trump refused to turn over his own DNA when asked multiple times over...years? I think it's years. That the DNA is therefore his, and he willingly forfeit his ability to challenge that.

Trump is just seeing a broad spectrum of legal fails anymore. Look, I know we've all pointed out that all the competent lawyers are avoiding the clearly guilty client who now literally pays negative money for services rendered. But it seems like we're seeing a bunch of "because of Trump's words and actions" all sledgehammering down on what's left of his balls all at once. The graph of his success rate in court looks like the rock of Gibraltar, and he's going over the cliff side.

Which is a really bad trend to set before being criminally indicted.

And I think Edge- is right. I think enough judges saw enough past precedent to say "no, that's now how this works". Trump's wealth, power, and influence is unable to buy him any leeway that even Matt Gaetz got. Carroll is the kind of person Trump would have legally crushed underfoot like ten years ago. Instead, she's basically walking into court with the super shotgun from Doom while he hides behind a napkin.

I mentioned earlier he hasn't taken a swing at Nikki Haley yet. Honestly, right now, he has more important things to worry about. Oh, not talking about Nikki Haley. I mean a 2024 run. He's drowning in legal issues and it's only halfway into February 2023.

- - - Updated - - -

One, Trump hasn't strangled his phone yet trying to tweet a response.

(not even three hours later)

Trump attacks Haley on Medicare, Social Security cuts

Yep.

I don't blame Trump, or anyone, for bringing up that Haley apparently in 2010 said something that could be interpreted as a SS/Medicare cut -- whether or not it was true, it's a red flag to a lot of people.

But like I said earlier, doesn't Trump have something better to do? I know he's still running walking waddling for office again, but he has a whole host of legal issues and also in theory a business that isn't bankrupt yet.

Also, I've mentioned before that, in any mixed field of GOP opponents Trump wins because only Trump is Trump and only Trump gets Trump voters. But he loses to both Biden and DeSantis one-on-one. And his allies know this. Haley running is a benefit, not an obstacle, for Trump.

While some of Donald Trump's allies publicly criticize Nikki Haley's decision to run against him in the 2024 Republican presidential primary, others are privately enthusiastic -- arguing that the more opponents he has in the race, the more likely he is to repeat his 2016 primary victory even if he again loses a majority of voters.

More specifically, these people contend, Haley and others running for the nomination can only weaken Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, seen by many as Trump's biggest potential challenger.

"Any Republican getting in the race isn't running against Donald Trump, they're running against Ron DeSantis," said one source close to Trump's team. "The best-case scenario for Haley is she exits the race as the runner-up to Donald Trump, but that will be at the expense of Ron DeSantis."

A longtime Trump aide who is close to his 2024 team, who like others for this story was granted anonymity to speak candidly, said that Haley running could actually be good for Trump as long as she isn't the only rival. "It's hard to see Trump losing with even four semi-serious candidates in the race. Even three, I would bet Trump," the aide said. "You start getting beyond three to four candidates running, it's basically impossible for him to lose."

A few things, of course.

One, others disagree. That's fair.

Two, he asked not to be named, because Trump would disown him if he found out. This means he's probably telling the truth.

Three, as we've seen, the number of candidates tends to whittle down to a one-on-one fight. If Haley drops out, her supporters don't magically vanish. And DeSantis has far more support from classic conservatives. Supporters of any candidate who is not Trump, when that candidate drops out, won't go to Trump. They would prefer a candidate who could win.

EDIT: Anyone want to start a pool for how long until Trump calls Nikki Haley physically ugly? He did it before, it's entirely in character that he will do it again.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh good, Trump wasn't done yet. Fucking eyeroll.

I’m glad she’s running. I want her to follow her heart — even though she made a commitment that she would never run against who she called the greatest president of her lifetime.

She should do what she wants to do and not be bound by the fact that she said she would never do it

Oddly enough, Trump is actually telling the truth for once.

Trump was referring to comments Haley made in April 2021. Haley told reporters then that she would support Trump in 2024 if he chose to run again.

When asked if she would run against Trump, Haley said: "I would not run if Trump ran. And I would talk to him about it. That is something that we’ll have a conversation about at some point if that decision is something that has to be made."

At the time, Haley said she had a "great working relationship" with Trump and stressed the importance of "building on what we accomplished."

I mean, Trump is in no position to complain. Haley is backing down on a statement she made to reporters, a group of people Trump despises. Trump, of course, breaks contracts all the time, also subpoenas.

You reap what you sow, motherfucker.

[Edge-]

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/sta...34574238711809

Reminder of that time Nikky Haley told a pro-confederate group that she believes states have a Constitutional right to secede.

This is not true, the Constitution lays out no such right and the next tweet links to a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

Just a reminder that a great many conservatives are still pro-confederate losers who don't understand anything about the Constitution.

[Paranoid Android]

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/sta...34574238711809

Reminder of that time Nikky Haley told a pro-confederate group that she believes states have a Constitutional right to secede.

This is not true, the Constitution lays out no such right and the next tweet links to a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

Just a reminder that a great many conservatives are still pro-confederate losers who don't understand anything about the Constitution.

I watched her Announcement and its funny. She claims she was born in a segregated part of town but racism is dead in America. Everything is perfect. Black people are bad.

While saying all this kumbaya moment she mentions the Charleston Church shooting and how she was so great. Didn't mention why or the cause of the church shooting. Remember people racism is dead.

She is campaigning for the VP spot, maybe some big cabinet spot at best. What else can she do?

[cubby]

Well, you know how special prosecutors work. After they're announced and assigned, it could take months, even years before...

Or.

Special counsel alleges crime to compel testimony from Trump lawyer

Ooooooooo. That's bad. @cubby you better take a look at this.

Justice Department prosecutors wish to speak with Trump attorney Evan Corcoran, multiple outlets reported late Tuesday, seeking approval from a judge in a sealed filing to invoke the crime-fraud exception.

The rare move to push for such cooperation from an attorney can only be ignited when legal advice was given in furtherance of a crime, a key issue for prosecutors as they investigate an obstruction of justice charge in connection with their search of Mar-a-Lago.

Bear in mind, Corcoran is already on the record and is therefore likely facing other charges, such as obstruction or lying to the feds. For one, he's testified before a grand jury already, and yes, that's under oath. For two, he's one of the Trump lawyers who claimed that they'd found all the stolen documents, and of course, that turned out to be false.

But neither of those seem to be mentioned right this second. It sounds like Corcoran gave Trump criminal advice. If Corcoran conspired with Trump to commit a crime, they're both further underwater than Trump Tower.

And while I know Trump lawyers have been hit before -- like, is it a dozen by now? -- this is different. Sanctions and disbarring are pretty hefty penalties. Going to jail is worse.

This is walking up to the precipice and spitting in the face of it all. The attorney is question is about to slide over to criminal status, wherein the attorney client privilege is removed, because the attorney was culpable in the crimes being committed, rather than just providing legal advice.

For those that haven't heard of this, it's basically the mob family head and lawyer breaking the law, and then trying to hide all the evidence behind attorney/client privilege. At some point that legal barrier falls away, because the crimes being committed were within the scope of the communications between the attorney and the other criminal.

Remember folks - no one survives supporting Trump, except tRuMp.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Gotta wonder why these people still support and lie for Trump. They're all going to jail, they're losing all their money, he's not even paying them. Why? I'd say someone has to break at some point, but that's only assuming nobody has broken yet, and we very well could have testimony from people formerly or currently close to Trump, and just don't know it.

[Breccia]

Gotta wonder why these people still support and lie for Trump.

He's more than likely down to the true believers of his cult, the people who would literally pay Trump for the honor of serving him. A thought that will keep them almost as warm as their cell bunkmate.

[Paranoid Android]

So amid all this Super Bowl shenanigans, Trump has been discussing with his team on what kind of rhetoric to use for his 2024 campaign.

One thing in particular: He not only wants to bring back the death penalty, but wants to reinstate banned forms of executions like firing squads, hanging, mass executions, and even the guillotine (the irony is completely lost on him for that last one).

Apparently he believes that promoting more violent forms of execution as well as having a supremely tough approach to "Crime" would win him a lot of points.

https://www.rollingstone.com/politic...ns-1234679447/

Unfortunately for him, I don't think there's going to be a silver bullet quite like going the xenophobic route while Hillary Clinton is your opponent.

Madness of King George, right?

Not only do we have to deal with a egomaniac, narcissist. Trump will come back as very unhinged person this time. Wasn't he last time, well yes. This time I think he has mentally declined more, desperate to be a strong man more and him executing people will show his strength. Scary as shit!

Also besides what we want to call laws, we all scoff at this when brought before at you think they will execute drug executives and such. It's crazy and people will say never happen, but this should never would be brought up by any candidate unless unhinged.

[Flarelaine]

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/sta...34574238711809

Reminder of that time Nikky Haley told a pro-confederate group that she believes states have a Constitutional right to secede.

This is not true, the Constitution lays out no such right and the next tweet links to a SCOTUS ruling on the matter.

Just a reminder that a great many conservatives are still pro-confederate losers who don't understand anything about the Constitution.

You know, I'm still not sure jettisoning the Bible Belt wouldn't help the rest of y'all.

[Nymrohd]

She is campaigning for the VP spot, maybe some big cabinet spot at best. What else can she do?

I mean, the best performing female in the race has a very good chance at the VP spot. Why not run for that?

[Edge-]

You know, I'm still not sure jettisoning the Bible Belt wouldn't help the rest of y'all.

Hey, I AM KINDA ALL FOR IT.

I still think that the US massively fucked up the post-Civil War era by not occupying the traitorous southern states and putting them in their place and instead treating them with kid gloves. I'm a firm believer that this is largely the origin for a lot of our current problems.

The Confederacy proper may have died with a pathetic whimper in a scant 4 years, but the diseased mentality behind it continued to be fostered and grown for generations. Hence why losers still create whole-ass identities around the fuckin Confederacy.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.vice.com/en/article/epzy...ry-indictments

A panel investigating Former President Donald Trump in Georgia said some witnesses may have lied under oath.

The special purpose grand jury also recommended the local Georgia prosecutor bring criminal charges if those lies can be proved, according to portions of the panel’s final report that were released on Thursday.

“A majority of the Grand Jury believes that perjury may have been committed by one or more witnesses testifying before it,” the report said. “The Grand Jury recommends that the District Attorney seek appropriate indictments for such crimes where the evidence is compelling.”

Nothing about Trump or the broader investigation so far, but that's generally not a good thing if a grand jury is fairly certain that witnesses are lying to them. Especially since some of those witnesses might be Trump's lawyers.

Weird how Trump always seems surrounded by liars, innit?

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/nikki...b07f036ba1a5eb

“If you had to delineate where, say, you and President Trump differ on issues, where would you start?” Hannity asked.

Haley replied that her candidacy “makes liberals’ heads explode” and offered this non-answer: “Look at everything that’s wrong in this country and tell me we don’t need new leadership. But the difference is we need new generational leadership. We have to leave the status quo. We have to leave this chaos behind and we’ve gotta start talking about the future.”

Haley said she would tackle issues such as grocery prices, children set back by the COVID pandemic and spy balloons. She said too many people in Washington are “past their prime,” repeating her calls for term limits and testing for lawmakers over 75.

Hannity tried again to engage Haley on what separates her from Trump.

“Where do you see — if you see — policy differences beyond what you mentioned, which are generational differences? What specific policy areas would you say part with Donald Trump?” Hannity asked.

Haley ducked again.

“What I am saying is I don’t kick sideways,” she said. “I’m kicking forward. Joe Biden is the president. He’s the one I’m running against.”

Haley is set for multiple primary battles against Trump in the 2024 race, but that seemed to skip her mind.

Her evasiveness regarding Trump has surfaced on “Hannity” previously. It may reflect the delicate balance GOP candidates must maintain to avoid angering the former president’s resilient base.

In case anyone is wondering how the "I'm not Trump" candidates are starting their campaigns, it's by doing everything they can to not actually distance themselves from Trump (just in case he's desperate for a VP I suppose), while also saying absolutly nothing of substance about themselves or their policy positions.

I'm honestly wondering who the fuck is bankrolling this monumental waste of time and money. Nikky Haley is like, the less charismatic, less competent version of Hillary Clinton, except she's killed her national aspirations all on her own and didn't need Democrats to build an entire cottage industry spanning decades to kill her political career. She did that all on her own.

[s_bushido]

while also saying absolutely nothing of substance about themselves or their policy positions

I'm sure you know the explanation is something along the lines of "they don't actually have any policy positions" outside of culture war horseshit (fueled by bigotry and stupidity) and...let's see...cutting taxes!

[Edge-]

I'm sure you know the explanation is something along the lines of "they don't actually have any policy positions" outside of culture war horseshit (fueled by bigotry and stupidity) and...let's see...cutting taxes!

Based on Huckabee-Sanders response to the SOTU, no, they don't have anything outside of the culture war.

And given that history consistently shows Republican policy positions and legislation to be plurality/majority unpopular (2017 tax cut as a great example), in contradiction to Democratic policies and legislation which are largely plurality/majority popular (the ACA!), it's not surprise that Republicans spend as little time discussing policies and as much time discussing the culture war as policy as they can.

Because we really need to make sure we aren't teaching children the wrong lessons when we read "Hop on Pop" to them, that book can send dangerous messages.

[Breccia]

To clarify an earlier story, the Atlanta grand jury recommends perjury charges. Not "we have questions" it's full-on "he lied, arrest him."

"Him" is a guess, we don't know who or how many yet. Most of the report is sealed because it's an ongoing investigation. The fact we have anything at all is because the press sued to the GASCOTUS.

[Drutt]

Grand Jury flat out accusing witnesses of perjury is really bad news for the Trumpa Loompa.

[Orange Joe]

To clarify an earlier story, the Atlanta grand jury recommends perjury charges. Not "we have questions" it's full-on "he lied, arrest him."

"Him" is a guess, we don't know who or how many yet. Most of the report is sealed because it's an ongoing investigation. The fact we have anything at all is because the press sued to the GASCOTUS.

Sorry for the ot. But is gascotus a thing? Cause in mi we just call it the Michigan State Supreme Court no "of the US" cause it's only for Michigan

[Breccia]

Grand Jury flat out accusing witnesses of perjury is really bad news for the Trumpa Loompa.

Very, and they should be concerned not just because some of them are going to jail -- they are -- but because they don't know who and they don't know why yet. They're likely desperate to find out what lie one of them told on the stand that's a proven, objective falsehood so the rest of them can back away from it.

Like, if someone says "at least one person in the room will die" that's bad news. If they instead say "because you ate the Peanut Butter Half Baked which I poisoned" then they all just turn and watch me to see how quick-acting the poison is, because I would have hogged that shit all to myself.

The second the person/people are arrested, the rest will know which lie they happened to not say on the stand, and will get with their lawyers to make new defenses.

Oh, and this is all above and beyond the grand jury's original intent, by the way. These people weren't dragged to the stand just to see if they would lie. They were dragged to the stand because they were targets of a criminal investigation. Or, witnesses, I guess it's possible a witness lied, but again I don't think that's the smart money.

- - - Updated - - -

Sorry for the ot. But is gascotus a thing? Cause in mi we just call it the Michigan State Supreme Court no "of the US" cause it's only for Michigan

So...SCOGA?